Sir Bandelot

No person can know everything about every place in the world. And what we know could become irrelevant in the future, as people and places change. I imagine at least part of the reason that you come here is to learn about Canadians as well. And you have formed your own opinions, generalizations. Some of it might even be true.

LOL, ok. I know where you're coming from! Only reason I do still come here is I've learned how to blow it off. I like learning about history and politics, and some members here can teach me a few things. Most of the others who think that they know everything already, simply cannot.

I think he is doing that. Different people experience the reality of the world in completely different ways. Your views are pragmatic and developed perhaps after years of experience. But the person you are compared to who you were some time ago has changed. Everyone deserves to go through that process themselves. But to Mapleleafs, while its true that certain drugs can open your eyes to different views of reality, I have found that real freedom comes from being able to understand and think through those views, without drugs.

It's part of the problem of a multi-cultural society. But then, which American realy has the right to define an identity or value system, for Americans? I don't know. But I believe you more or less just told us to ignore the indicators in your own media. Physician, heal thyself...

Understanding that is a huge breakthrough in the personal, spiritual growth of the human being. I mean the human being, not human animal. Not everyone is ready to be receptive to that idea.

I don't think thats true. While most of us here on this board are Canadians, we talk about many things, not just America. Any country that is a current topic of interest is discussed. America is our nearest neighbour, biggest trading partner and has the largest economy, so the topic comes up fairly frequently in international affairs. But that's all. In fact in normal daily life here in Canada, at work or on our own time the topic of America rarely comes up in conversation at all. At least, thats my experience. So the idea that America is hugely important to the Canadian psyche is perhaps one of your misconceptions. Also I believe there is a tendency here to tease or provoke certain American members, usually just for fun. Don't let it go to your head.

Not yet, but this is your suggestion so let us explore it and see what it entails. Saying it should be done and actually doing it poses certain problems. Example Lieberman says they should be deported. But if they are US citizens, where would they go? Second, do you feel comfortable with removing safeguards that protect the individual from being falsely accused. An ordinary citizen can get swept up by the legal process. They could be overwhelmed. Its possible to set someone up, by framing them and without those protections their lives can be permanently ruined. I know there is a certain passionate desire to wipe out terrorists because they threaten to ruin your utopian society. They are the fly in the ointment, so to speak. Problem is that by going down this road you also risk eroding that utopian society by your own hand.

So JBG, are you advocating that American citizens who are even suspected of terrorism should have their rights suspended and be tried in a military court, like Joe Lieberman says?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it and not try to help them do something to end peoples suffering. From what I read in the link, I think the Afghanis just want the war and all associated violence (ie. Taliban) to stop. If there is a way to bring peace to Afghanistan, including reconciliation with the taliban, I think we should try to achieve that.

Theres no saying he couldn't do that. But he won't have the big party funding in his favour. That's the only point I want to make, the system encourages conformity by use of money.

Courageous, ethical perhaps, but he also resigned his post. So in other words, such a position cannot be politically effective.

The text implies that while they understand the Taliban as their enemy in the field, they don't understand the backstabbing coming from home. Personally I don't think the troops are directly to blame, if any such misconduct has in fact occurred. The government clearly has something to hide and seeks to protect itself. But we won't know that until the truth comes out.

Ok, fine. But likewise the system does allow leaders to dictate their will upon the MP's, to vote along party lines. Or else there will be punishment. So if that was no longer allowed (being ousted for voting against the party), then I would agree that the system protects independent thinking MP's. But fact is, they ultimately have to become independent to really do that. And that means, bye bye big money... As usual economics trumps etc.

When an organization such as financial allows such things to continue without stopping it, there is a belief that it was secretly known and permitted, at least by some of the key players. It's not necessarily an official secret policy of the organization as a whole, but manipulation by people of considerable influence. We could call these people criminals.

Voting records generally show otherwise. They still can but history shows what happens to those who decide to go rogue on the party.

Yes, I think the reality of todays politics is that the party is all-powerful. Leaders are vetted by the party executive. Somewhat like a corporation chooses its CEO, decision made by the board of governors. It's a power problem. Not saying that I like it, but I don't think that merely removing the party name from the ballot would solve this problem. Not really shooting down my first statement, if you read the clarification of what I just wrote. If we are talking about Federal then the election of a particular MP in my riding is somewhat abstract. In a certain sense yes, the individual doesn't matter. Some people vote for a candidate in their riding because they want that federal party to win, knowing the person who is in their riding will do their part according to party policies and decision. I admit, when I think federal, I think "party" because of the nature of the way that game is run. Quite often, crucial votes in the house are dictated by the party leaders. The MP's are told how to vote on an important bill. If they don't like it they risk being ousted by the party and forced to go independent.

I think reality is somewhere in between the two, ie. manipulations versus stupidity. In some cases History gets manipulated for political or personal gains. When it comes to wars, we've all heard the saying that "History is written by the victors". Then there's revisionism, which is a problem we have to deal with today. Unauthorized sources of information can promote lies, a big problem on the internet. Machiavelli's book "The Prince" is a well known work from antiquity (1500's) that laid out an actual methodology for political leaders to use in deceiving the public. But how many of these attempted manipulations actually take place, and how many are successful? How many other events happen due to just stupid bad luck, or stupid choices made in the heat of passion. Its very hard to say. The Bay of Pigs fiasco would be one example of such large scale deceptions, as is the Reichstag fire (... if the stories are "true) I think manipulations and lies are a necessary part of political and military domination, but they're not all that there is. It's very difficult to be able to control people and events involved to such an extent and get away with it.

Sounds like the original Athenian model.

Commonly known as the Imperial system.

I don't see how its helpful to take the party names off. A big part of the decision to vote is knowing what the party represents, what policies they have in their agenda, what laws they will introduce. Just because a person like Harper has some charisma, and leadership skills doesn't make him the right one to vote for, if the party's politics is not in line with what you believe in.

Despite all that, there is no law against it. If white folks believe they have the right to say and do whatever they want, where and when they want, as long as it's not illegal, well...

Back to the point I was trying to make, about fear and the insidious nature of terrorism. Americans (or anyone under threat of terrorism for that matter) need to be vigilant but at the same time not allow fear to misguide them into paralysis. When we are attacked there is a tendency to have an emotional response. Part of what the terrorists want is to undermine our society and values, things like liberty. It doesn't matter to them but for the fact that they cause chaos and force us to change in response to their threats. So in that way yes, they do hate us for our freedoms. I think after 9/11 things like that were happening. Some argue that the threat of terrorism, and the real danger it holds is frequently being overblown. Because statistically the casualty rate is lower than car accidents, etc. But these are purposeful events, directed to create harm, and they make for big media headlines. Dangerous media explosion Times Square car bomb: Don’t let our fear give terrorists a victory As I tried to say earlier, there's a danger of being too relaxed. So, tough to know where to draw the line between liberty and security. The other problem is avoiding an extreme (?) reaction by some US leaders who want to make drastic changes that threaten everyones liberty. I think these people are going too far... there needs to be a more measured response. With Joe Lieberman suggesting we strip suspected terrorists of their citizenship... "'My feeling is that if they make a judgment that this was a terrorist act, the person should be turned over to the military,' Lieberman said. ... That's not allowed under current law. U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions - the 2006 law that outlines guidelines for the commissions authorizes them only for 'alien unprivileged enemy belligerent http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/huffpost-hill---may-4-201_n_563443.html And in the same article... "Bloomberg is upset about a federal loophole that, amazingly enough, allows people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist to legally buy guns and explosives... Despite what would appear to be an easy vote, members of Congress, at least in part due to fear of the gun lobby, have consistently bucked requests from both the Bush and Obama administrations to close what Bloomberg calls the 'terror gap.'" Is NRA protecting potential terrorists rights? That's insane.

I'm never "whined", but I don't care to engge in spitefullness, as you seem to enjoy doing. Good, so I can continue making the point I was trying to make.

That, and child molesting priests. We are seen as a degenerate society by the islamic nations, and in some ways we certainly are. Not that they don't have problems as well, I suppose. THe real war is between the liberal and conservative mndset, which divides the culture even in our own society. Liberals have dominated over the past several decades, probably since the 1960's. But today we see some of the problems that has created, and there is a definite swing taking place. Conservatism is on the rise, worldwide. Not that I completely applaud it, because there are clearly problems with extremism, either way. Striking the right balance is what this struggle is all about. And it will likely never end.